Responding to the GA’s curriculum response

The GA recently published their response to the Review of Curriculum and Assessment. Having submitted my own thoughts in the call for evidence (and completed the GA survey asking for geography teachers to share their thoughts), I wanted to read and properly digest what our subject association had shared in their response. As I read and made my own notes, I found myself wanting to try to help ensure that the conversation around the future of geography curriculum was being had at all levels and so I decided to have a go at sharing my thoughts.

So, this blog is a response to the GA’s response. It feels daunting to share my thoughts in this way for several reasons and so I want to start with a disclaimer. Here goes: I fully support the work of the GA and value what they do to serve as a voice for the geography teacher community. This blog is not meant to read as a dig at their response but rather, I hope, as one of several next steps in the conversation.

This blog works through the response in order and, as you read, I encourage you to consider where you agree and disagree with my thoughts. Where would you challenge my thinking and assumptions? What have I missed in these debates? Where would you go further in your support or disagreement with the GA’s recommendations?

More pupils are studying geography
Whilst sharing the broader context around the teaching and studying of geography, p.2 references the fact that geography graduates earn ‘top 10’ salaries, secure above average graduate incomes, and experience above average rates of graduate employment. Whilst I am used to seeing (and being pleased by) facts and figures such as these, this time, I found myself pausing and reflecting on a quote from Danny Dorling’s article in the Autumn 2024 issue of Geography. In this article, he said the following:

In my opinion, we need to consider Dorling’s comment and consider the important ramifications that this could have for the teaching of geography at University and also before, at A-Level and GCSE.

How geography represents the world: diversity and inclusion
The next section of the response discusses geography’s distinct curriculum contribution. When sharing how geography represents the world, the response states that geography has a key responsibility to ensure the accurate representation of people, communities and experiences. It goes on to say that through this accurate representation, ‘geography enables all young people to be included and ‘see themselves’ in the curriculum’ (p.3). Upon reading this paragraph I found scribbling an annotation: yes, this is true but only if we actively seek to ensure this in our curriculum work. This is not a given and we must continue to work as a community to achieve this- it cannot be taken for granted that the study of geography itself enables this.

Further down in the same section, geography’s integrated approach is discussed. It explains that ‘one of geography’s key curriculum contributions is through its integrated approach which explores the interactions between people (the human geography) and environment (the physical geography)’ (p.3). As I read, I found myself questioning whether this was an overly simplistic binary and a phrasing that ignores the third domain of environmental geography? I pondered whether the word ‘environment’ should be replaced to reflect the idea that environmental geography is often where we study the interaction between the human and physical and thus not a synonym for ‘physical geography’.

Geographical enquiry
I was thrilled to see a specific section on ‘geographical enquiry’ in the response. Page 4 begins with the line that ‘one of this subject’s signature pedagogical approaches is ‘geographical enquiry’ before giving a definition of it, referenced to Ofsted (2022). However, I found the definition and subsequent (short) discussion lacking. I fear that the definition given risks a misconception that geographical enquiry is limited to fieldwork.

In my opinion, we have work to do as a subject community in this area. I think that we need to be using a definition of geographical enquiry that truly recognises this approach as a ‘signature pedagogy’ and thus one that reaches far beyond fieldwork. Whilst I accept that if we define ‘data’ in the broadest possible sense then the definition given does recognise that geographical enquiry is much more than fieldwork, it is the misconception of this phrasing (and subsequent lethal mutations) that I fear. We risk reducing ‘geographical enquiry’ to undertaking or completing geographical enquiry (something that can be ticked off) rather than fostering or developing geographical enquiry (something that is a way of thinking and a lens through which to see the world).

Geography and digital skills
I highlighted the phrase ‘we need a geographically literate society’ mid-way down p.4 as an excellent phrase to sum up the importance of geography- a phrase I’ll be stealing to use!

The Geographical Association recommends the following
Towards the end of p.6 of the response, the recommendations of the GA begin.
This section opens with the sentence:
‘Geography is the curriculum heartland for climate change education, sustainability and green skills.’

Again, a phrasing I like and a statement I found myself nodding to but one which left me questioning. How do we ensure that geography is the curriculum heartland for climate change education but avoid climate change education occupying the heartland of geography curriculum? I know that many geography teachers will agree with me when I say that a careful balance needs to be struck. After all, whilst we want climate change education to sit at the heart of geography, we don’t want geography to be reduced to the study of climate change. Geography is not ‘just’ climate change; climate change is one component (albeit an essential one) of our rich discipline.

In discussing this idea, the response recommends that the revised geography curriculum should include direct references to climate change at KS2 and KS3. Again, I nodded in agreement but surely, we know and accept that the majority of schools already do this? For me, the issue is not the inclusion of climate change in Key Stage 2 and 3, it is the ensuring of high-quality teaching of climate change at all key stages.

Geography National Curriculum: the Geographical Association recommends
The next section of the response provides a bullet point list of recommendations for the National Curriculum. Here, geographical enquiry is mentioned again. The 3rd bullet point states that ‘the geography National Curriculum should set ‘geographical enquiry’ as it’s heart’. This is a sentiment I fully support: if geographers are going to defend, justify and champion geographical enquiry in the knowledge-rich age (where all reference to ‘enquiry’ more broadly is out of vogue) then it must be mentioned in the National Curriculum. However, if we argue for the term’s inclusion, we need absolute clarity on how we are defining it. I would go one step further and argue that, given the recruitment situation (read: crisis) around geography specialists, we must have non-specialists in mind when we seek to define, and subsequently share, what we mean by ‘geographical enquiry’.

Linked to this, we cannot assume that geography specialists in our schools have had exposure to ideas of, and writing on, enquiry before. Here I am thinking of the seminal work by Margaret Roberts and others. In a previous age such ideas would have been introduced to all on ITT programmes but, as a result of the decline of PGCEs, this can no longer be assumed. We need to work harder than ever to champion our signature pedagogy and, I fear, we are a long way from doing this as a subject community. Including the term in the National Curriculum is a step in the right direction but it is only one small step. 

The final bullet point of these recommendations states that ‘geographical fieldwork should be a requirement in each year of geography study, throughout the National Curriculum’ (p.8). Here, we come to the first statement with which I categorically disagree. Whilst I believe that fieldwork should be required at Key Stage 3, I do not support any mention of ‘each year’ in National Curriculum documents. To me, this risks significant lethal mutations and misunderstandings. As I read this recommendation, I see the mock-sted checklists being written. I see an inspector checking that fieldwork is completed each year with no consideration for the quality of said fieldwork. I see departments struggling without a Head of Geography, or those with an over-worked Head of Geography and a team of non-specialists, wondering how on earth they’re going to achieve this. And so, what will result? Poorer quality fieldwork.

Surely one high-quality study at Key Stage 3 is better than 3 weaker studies shoe-horned in because you need to tick that box?

GCSE geography: the Geographical Association recommends
Following the bullet points of recommendations for the National Curriculum, the response moves onto a similar list for GCSE geography.

The recommendations pleasing state that ‘GCSE content needs significant revision to reduce current overload’ (p.8) and goes on to give ideas for areas of refinement. One of the ideas given is to review the scope of the Global Economic / Development Issue unit/s. Personally, I feel this is the wrong area of the current GCSE specifications to highlight. In my opinion, it is the UK studies that need reducing- both the UK economic content and the UK landscape content.

The recommendations state that ‘GCSE content should be updated so that its case studies make greater use of contemporaneous geographical events and issues’ (p.8). Whilst I agree with this idea in principle, I am surprised at it’s inclusion believing that is not the specifications that restrict us here. In my experience, it is the workload of replacing GCSE case studies and the need for high-quality resources to support the teaching of these case studies that hinder our ability to do this. It is the lag-time associated with high-quality resources (such as a textbook), that are the major constraint.

And then we get onto GCSE fieldwork and assessment…
I strongly agree with the statement that ‘the choice of where to undertake fieldwork is best left to teachers’ (p.9) and hoped that this statement was a pre-cursor to an argument by the GA for increased flexibility and fewer restrictions. Sadly, this isn’t the case and I found the next recommendation very disappointing. It states that we need stronger direction in the type of fieldwork completed and the range of techniques to be used in the fieldwork enquiry. Personally, I disagree; more restrictions are the last thing we need.

If we argue that the choice of where to undertake fieldwork is best left to teachers then this must include the type of activities that can be completed. In particular, I would argue that the fieldwork requirements should be far more open to choice so that local areas can be used more creatively and experimentally. In my current role as Trust Lead for Geography I do more GCSE fieldwork than ever before and average round 25 days a year. What I see on these days is how the current requirements remove any real sense of awe and wonder associated with fieldwork and it’s such a shame. If we’re going to get students (and staff) back to enjoying being in the field, then the answer is not more guidance, it is increased flexibility.

But if I found this idea frustrating, it is nothing compared to my opinions on the next bullet point…

‘Coursework should ideally represent 20% of GCSE geography’s assessment’

I’m not sure where to begin in my response to this. Suffice to say: absolutely not. I won’t go into too much depth here but I cannot endorse this recommendation and am surprised (and disappointed) that the GA have put this forward. I strongly believe that instead of being a tool for high-quality geography, it is instead a tool for gaming the system, unmanageable staff workload and necessary stress for all involved. How on earth would that work in the average state comprehensive school with 100+ GCSE geographers, IT rooms that are always fully timetabled with no additional capacity and a critical shortage of geography teachers? No, don’t tell me to that booking the laptop trolley and wheeling it round to my classroom is the solution. We all know that is an absolute waste of time.

Once I’d moved on from this idea (and calmed down a little), I swiftly found myself back to nodding in agreement with the next recommendations. The GA recommends that the current ‘unseen’ fieldwork assessment is removed- a move I whole-heartedly support.

It recommends that fieldwork should integrate human and physical geography within a people / environment enquiry- again, something I also fully support but, to return to my earlier point, something that I don’t think is possible without fewer restrictions.

A level geography: the Geographical Association recommends
It will come as no surprise to many of us that the recommendations for A-Level geography are largely ‘business as usual’. The GA writes that the current A level is fit for purpose, a statement I strongly agree with- albeit with some tweaks needed for certain topics (Edexcel Regenerating Places EQ1, I am looking at you…!)

And so there we have it, my response to the GA’s response to the Review of Curriculum and Assessment. Congratulations on getting this far- it’s a long read! To repeat what I said right at the start of this blog, I hope this hasn’t read as a dig at GA’s response and ideas. Overall, the submission is an excellent read and one that reflects the hard work of the GA to champion the voices of us geography teachers. But, us geographers are known for our health love of debate and discussion and so this is my attempt to continue the conversation. What have I said that you agree with? What do you disagree with? What would you like to challenge me on? I look forward to hearing more thoughts!